Author Topic: 1 Judge Overrides Will of the People  (Read 1121 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57,083
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them
1 Judge Overrides Will of the People
« on: May 21, 2014, 06:29:23 AM »


1 Judge Overrides Will of the People


Posted 24 mins ago by Dave Jolly Filed under Constitution, Corruption, Culture, History, Homosexuality, Law, Liberalism, State Laws


When our Founding Fathers created our nation, they did so to make it a nation of the people where their will would rule. In that endeavor, they established three different branches of the federal government. Each branch has their own powers and duties, but ultimately, it is the will of the majority of the people that was supposed to rule.

If John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, could see America today I’m sure he would weep as two of the branches of government have assumed far more power than intended. The executive and judicial branches were actually designed to be the weakest of the three branches with the legislative branch being the strongest as the men and women serving there are supposed to do the will of the people.
 



Unfortunately, all three branches have corrupted themselves and the will of the people no longer matters. According to the Declaration of Independence, the American people have the right to revolt against the federal government, seize all power from them and establish a nation like our Founding Fathers intended.

Case in point is what just happened in Oregon.

In 2004, Measure 36 was passed by the majority of Oregon voters to amend the state constitution to define marriage as one man and one woman. On Monday, one man used his personal agenda to override the will of the majority of Oregon voters by declaring Measure 36 to be unconstitutional.

In his ruling, US District Judge Michael McShane stated:


"Because Oregon's marriage laws discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation without a rational relationship to any legitimate government interest, the laws violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution."

"My decision will not be the final word on this subject, but on this issue of marriage I am struck more by our similarities than our differences. I believe that if we can look for a moment past gender and sexuality, we can see in these plaintiffs nothing more or less than our own families, families who we would expect our Constitution to protect, if not exalt, in equal measure. With discernment we see not shadows lurking in closets or the stereotypes of what was once believed; rather, we see families committed to the common purpose of love, devotion, and service to the greater community."
 



WRONG!

How can anyone call a same-sex marriage a family who has the same values and commitments as traditional families? God was very clear about homosexuality as He addresses it in several places in Scripture. He calls it an abomination and even said in Leviticus 20:13:


“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”

In Romans 1:18-31, Paul writes under the inspiration of God that turning a nation over to their homosexual lusts and desires is a form of punishment for their turning away from His statutes. If you read this passage of Scripture, you will see America perfectly described 2,000 years ago.

So how did our nation fall to such a level as to not only openly embrace an abominable and sinful lifestyle, but to the point of allowing one person to override the will of the majority of the people?

It all started around 1900 when liberal progressives began planning to change the face of America. One of the facets they needed to change was our national Christian faith and the structure of the family. With those foundations lost, everything else the liberal progressives want to do is fair game. President Obama has helped to accelerate the process of converting our once Christian republic into a liberal progressive socialist democracy and eventual dictatorship. (In case you forgot, a republic is run by the people and a democracy is dictated by those that were elected by the people.)

What’s happened in Oregon is becoming a growing trend among liberal judges who have flushed the Constitution down their toilets and replaced it with humanist and socialist propaganda. It’s going to continue to happen more and more unless Christians start standing up, speaking out, getting involved and take back our nation. Otherwise, America is certain to fall like every other great nation that openly embraced such a sinful and decadent way of life.

Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/15630/1-judge-overrides-will-people/#ouglYOuwt1dQyIWo.99
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics. There must be a positive passion for the public good, the public interest, honour, power and glory, established in the minds of the people, or there can be no republican government, nor any real liberty: and this public passion must be superior to all private passions. John Adams

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,498
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: 1 Judge Overrides Will of the People
« Reply #1 on: May 21, 2014, 09:06:02 AM »
Quote
When our Founding Fathers created our nation, they did so to make it a nation of the people where their will would rule. In that endeavor, they established three different branches of the federal government. Each branch has their own powers and duties, but ultimately, it is the will of the majority of the people that was supposed to rule.

That is astoundingly wrong.

What the author described in that sentence is a Democracy, the rule of the omnipotent majority, and NOT the government established by our Constitution and the Founders.

No one "rules" in the system of government established by the founders, especially the majority.

The Founders set in place a Republic for the purpose of controlling the Majority and to stop them from violating the right of the individuals. By doing that, by protecting the rights of individuals is how all our rights are protected.

Americans are governed by consensus, tempered by existing laws and guided by the respect for individual freedoms, not the whim of the collective.

The will of the people is enshrined in the Constitution and we don't reassess what that will is with every political or social breeze that may blow. We apply the Constitution to each situation and struggle to find that answer which best addresses the right to the individual to his or her own rights.

Americans are not ruled, not even the ones despised by the Majority.

« Last Edit: May 21, 2014, 09:06:42 AM by Luis Gonzalez »
“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57,083
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them
Re: 1 Judge Overrides Will of the People
« Reply #2 on: May 21, 2014, 09:52:27 AM »

Americans are not ruled, not even the ones despised by the Majority.

NOT YET.  BUT IT WON'T BE LONG.
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics. There must be a positive passion for the public good, the public interest, honour, power and glory, established in the minds of the people, or there can be no republican government, nor any real liberty: and this public passion must be superior to all private passions. John Adams

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,498
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: 1 Judge Overrides Will of the People
« Reply #3 on: May 21, 2014, 09:58:20 AM »
NOT YET.  BUT IT WON'T BE LONG.

If and when that happens, it won't be right.

The point is that this writer thinks that this should be the case now because he's part of the majority.
“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,807
Re: 1 Judge Overrides Will of the People
« Reply #4 on: May 23, 2014, 12:42:49 PM »
Quote
“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination;

Well...they've also committed an impossibility. 0005
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 19,394
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: 1 Judge Overrides Will of the People
« Reply #5 on: May 23, 2014, 01:29:35 PM »
That is astoundingly wrong.

What the author described in that sentence is a Democracy, the rule of the omnipotent majority, and NOT the government established by our Constitution and the Founders.

No one "rules" in the system of government established by the founders, especially the majority.

The Founders set in place a Republic for the purpose of controlling the Majority and to stop them from violating the right of the individuals. By doing that, by protecting the rights of individuals is how all our rights are protected.

Americans are governed by consensus, tempered by existing laws and guided by the respect for individual freedoms, not the whim of the collective.

The will of the people is enshrined in the Constitution and we don't reassess what that will is with every political or social breeze that may blow. We apply the Constitution to each situation and struggle to find that answer which best addresses the right to the individual to his or her own rights.

Americans are not ruled, not even the ones despised by the Majority.

Exactly right on this one Luis! Our founders could not even utter the word "democracy' with spitting afterwards to clear the distaste from they mouths! The universally and rightly hated and greatly feared the very idea of a 'Democracy".
“It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.” —Voltaire

Online truth_seeker

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 16,391
  • Common Sense Results Oriented Conservative Veteran
Re: 1 Judge Overrides Will of the People
« Reply #6 on: May 23, 2014, 02:10:16 PM »
And yet again, obscure fringe sources, claiming the nation should be ruled by Bible verses.

But our founders did NOT put Bible verses in our constitution.

The beauty of our country is that a group can band together, call themselves a religion, adopt a book, vow to live by the verses in the book, providing their actions are legal.

Another beauty of our country is that by law, that same group does NOT posses the legal power, to impose the rules of those verses on the rest of us.

It greatly disappoints some of them, for sure. In the 1800s the Southern Baptist church openly supported slavery. But our civil government overruled them on this matter.

* I would imagine the Southern Baptist  church of the era had Bible verses to support their slavery position. Here is google's first page on the topic

https://www.google.com/search?site=&source=hp&q=christian+support+for+slavery&oq=biblical+support+for+slavery&gs_l=hp.1.1.0j0i22i30.5579583.5584940.0.5588448.30.21.0.9.9.0.346.2805.1j17j1j1.20.0....0...1c.1.45.hp..3.27.2578.0.vyZv6QL7ZjY
 
Here is an article from the many sources on the list above:

http://historyengine.richmond.edu/episodes/view/3535

Offline olde north church

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,136
Re: 1 Judge Overrides Will of the People
« Reply #7 on: May 24, 2014, 09:56:15 AM »
I'm having difficulty expressing this thought.  Any help would be appreciated.  Thanks.

The religious have always claimed to have a greater stake in the creation of America, therefore a more important(?- not exact word I want) in it's governing.  This isn't the first time, second time, third time or even fourth time religious movements have sought power in greater relation to their numbers.
It's also not the first time pseudo-religions have sought to hold sway over the government.  The Temperance Movement, environmentalism and homosexual rights all have won in the public arena based upon propaganda.
Conservatives should learn to manipulate public opinion so well.
Why?  Well, because I'm a bastard, that's why.

Online EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 19,742
  • Itchy yet?
Re: 1 Judge Overrides Will of the People
« Reply #8 on: May 24, 2014, 10:00:26 AM »
When you try to legislate morality, it is no longer morality.
Anyone who tells you you can't buy happiness has never been in a book store or an animal shelter.

You are the result of 3 billion years of evolutionary success. Act like it.

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,498
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: 1 Judge Overrides Will of the People
« Reply #9 on: May 24, 2014, 12:54:51 PM »
I'm having difficulty expressing this thought.  Any help would be appreciated.  Thanks.

The religious have always claimed to have a greater stake in the creation of America, therefore a more important(?- not exact word I want) in it's governing.  This isn't the first time, second time, third time or even fourth time religious movements have sought power in greater relation to their numbers.
It's also not the first time pseudo-religions have sought to hold sway over the government.  The Temperance Movement, environmentalism and homosexual rights all have won in the public arena based upon propaganda.
Conservatives should learn to manipulate public opinion so well.

In other words, you believe that religionists feel more entitled to direct the thrust of public policies because they believe that they had a greater impact in the creation of the nation than other groups. I'm not saying that you agree with that, just that you believe that's the case.

I agree that they did have a great impact in the early settling of the continent, but they came here fleeing persecution and oppression by competing religions and seeking the freedom to live under the tenets of whichever religion they chose to live under.

Religionists have lost sight of that.

One of tye most hotly contested sentences in American history is Thomas Jefferson's infamous "separation of Church and State" one, which is relentlessly attacked by religionists any time it comes up in debates over  encroachments or sojourns (real or imagined) into government.  Religionists argue that the term never appears in the U.S. Constitution so it is irrelevant.

Two things about that:

  • If we're going to only governed via the principles specifically mentioned in the Constitution, religioniss will trake an equal (or even greater) hit on their principles than non-religionists. Other than forbidding Congress from establishing a national religion, or securing the people's right to practice religion as they wish, the Constitution is silent on religion itself.
  • The "wall of separation" phrase is not Jefferson's. “[W]hen they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of Separation between the Garden of the Church and the Wildernes of the world, God hathe ever broke down the wall it selfe, removed the Candlestick, &c. and made his Garden a Wildernesse.” - Roger Williams, Founder of Rhode Island, founder First Baptist Church in America, first Baptist Minister in America, 9th President of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, first abolitionist in America.
Religionists would do well to remember that the first American settlements were founded by people seeking refuge from religious persecution.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2014, 12:55:36 PM by Luis Gonzalez »
“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline olde north church

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,136
Re: 1 Judge Overrides Will of the People
« Reply #10 on: May 24, 2014, 01:58:21 PM »
In other words, you believe that religionists feel more entitled to direct the thrust of public policies because they believe that they had a greater impact in the creation of the nation than other groups. I'm not saying that you agree with that, just that you believe that's the case.

I agree that they did have a great impact in the early settling of the continent, but they came here fleeing persecution and oppression by competing religions and seeking the freedom to live under the tenets of whichever religion they chose to live under.

Religionists have lost sight of that.

One of tye most hotly contested sentences in American history is Thomas Jefferson's infamous "separation of Church and State" one, which is relentlessly attacked by religionists any time it comes up in debates over  encroachments or sojourns (real or imagined) into government.  Religionists argue that the term never appears in the U.S. Constitution so it is irrelevant.

Two things about that:

  • If we're going to only governed via the principles specifically mentioned in the Constitution, religioniss will trake an equal (or even greater) hit on their principles than non-religionists. Other than forbidding Congress from establishing a national religion, or securing the people's right to practice religion as they wish, the Constitution is silent on religion itself.
  • The "wall of separation" phrase is not Jefferson's. “[W]hen they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of Separation between the Garden of the Church and the Wildernes of the world, God hathe ever broke down the wall it selfe, removed the Candlestick, &c. and made his Garden a Wildernesse.” - Roger Williams, Founder of Rhode Island, founder First Baptist Church in America, first Baptist Minister in America, 9th President of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, first abolitionist in America.
Religionists would do well to remember that the first American settlements were founded by people seeking refuge from religious persecution.

Yes -- you're correct on both points; what they feel and my disagreement with that sense of entitlement!

Why?  Well, because I'm a bastard, that's why.

Online truth_seeker

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 16,391
  • Common Sense Results Oriented Conservative Veteran
Re: 1 Judge Overrides Will of the People
« Reply #11 on: May 24, 2014, 02:37:45 PM »
Anybody that bothers to study the history of religion in the American colonies (and in Britain then) will learn there was plenty of controversy, and that the absence of directives about religion in the final Constitution, Amendments, reflected the view that people should be free to practice religions of their choices, and the state should stay out of it.


Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 43,477
  • #NeverTrumpForever
Re: 1 Judge Overrides Will of the People
« Reply #12 on: May 24, 2014, 03:45:20 PM »
And if this one judge had upheld the law, would "we" be singing hosannas to how 1 Judge saves the will of the people?

Sorry, but this happens all the time - it is the nature and function of judges - and this weeping and gnashing of teeth is rather unseemly.

In point of fact, it was the Founders who intended that the "Will of the People" be limited, that it be gainsaid by the judiciary when it oversteps the constitutional bounds they created, so this is what the Founders intended, not a denigration of what they intended.

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,498
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: 1 Judge Overrides Will of the People
« Reply #13 on: May 24, 2014, 04:48:36 PM »
And if this one judge had upheld the law, would "we" be singing hosannas to how 1 Judge saves the will of the people?

Sorry, but this happens all the time - it is the nature and function of judges - and this weeping and gnashing of teeth is rather unseemly.

In point of fact, it was the Founders who intended that the "Will of the People" be limited, that it be gainsaid by the judiciary when it oversteps the constitutional bounds they created, so this is what the Founders intended, not a denigration of what they intended.

The primary purpose of a Republic is to stop an Omnipotent majority from violating the rights of the individual as enshrined in the Constitution.

Conservatives and all those who oppose same-sex marriage want to define the Will of the Majority as the founding concept of the nation and Direct Democracy (ballot initiatives and the such) as Conservatism. 

Courts exist to settle contentious arguments, and when they do the winning party extols their wisdom and values while the losing party attacks them as radical violators of the Constitution.
“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,807
Re: 1 Judge Overrides Will of the People
« Reply #14 on: May 24, 2014, 07:11:59 PM »
The primary purpose of a Republic is to stop an Omnipotent majority from violating the rights of the individual as enshrined in the Constitution.

Conservatives and all those who oppose same-sex marriage want to define the Will of the Majority as the founding concept of the nation and Direct Democracy (ballot initiatives and the such) as Conservatism. 

Courts exist to settle contentious arguments, and when they do the winning party extols their wisdom and values while the losing party attacks them as radical violators of the Constitution.

The issue of same-sex marriage is worth talking about.  Is it a universal right, or as with other family law issues, one set aside for states to decide?  I think you are operating under the assumption that marriage is a basic human or civil right.  That has yet to work its way through the court system.  Nor do I disagree with your assumptions about the court system.

But opposition to gay marriage comes from different aspects.  The religious right believes that it is antithetical to their beliefs.  Others believe that the slippery slope is real and a potential threat to our culture and social order.  It's not all about trying to deny basic human rights.  It is an issue that cuts through any kind of political conservatism argument. 

Our society is more and more accepting of gay marriage.  As that happens both the courts and political conservatives will follow, albeit probably a tad slower.  The religious right is likely never to accept such arrangements.  So what?  As long as our constitutional structure remains sound, it won't matter a hell of a lot.
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,498
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: 1 Judge Overrides Will of the People
« Reply #15 on: May 25, 2014, 02:07:04 AM »
The issue of same-sex marriage is worth talking about.  Is it a universal right, or as with other family law issues, one set aside for states to decide?  I think you are operating under the assumption that marriage is a basic human or civil right. That has yet to work its way through the court system.  Nor do I disagree with your assumptions about the court system.

But opposition to gay marriage comes from different aspects.  The religious right believes that it is antithetical to their beliefs.  Others believe that the slippery slope is real and a potential threat to our culture and social order.  It's not all about trying to deny basic human rights.  It is an issue that cuts through any kind of political conservatism argument. 

Our society is more and more accepting of gay marriage.  As that happens both the courts and political conservatives will follow, albeit probably a tad slower.  The religious right is likely never to accept such arrangements.  So what?  As long as our constitutional structure remains sound, it won't matter a hell of a lot.

Loving v. Virginia,  388 U.S. 1 (1967). Chief Justice writing for the unanimous Court:

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man'."
“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,807
Re: 1 Judge Overrides Will of the People
« Reply #16 on: May 25, 2014, 08:20:43 AM »
Loving v. Virginia,  388 U.S. 1 (1967). Chief Justice writing for the unanimous Court:

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man'."

Guess I should have reworded, lol.  But I think you and I both know he was talking about traditional marriage.  Only 5 years later the High Court rejected a gay marriage case for want of a substantial federal issue.  But perhaps it might one day be so considered and anyone or any group will have a right to legal marriage. 
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,498
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: 1 Judge Overrides Will of the People
« Reply #17 on: May 25, 2014, 09:21:13 AM »
Guess I should have reworded, lol.  But I think you and I both know he was talking about traditional marriage.  Only 5 years later the High Court rejected a gay marriage case for want of a substantial federal issue.  But perhaps it might one day be so considered and anyone or any group will have a right to legal marriage.

When he said that he expanded the meaning of traditional marriage. Black and white marriage wasn't "traditional" at the time and opposed by 70% of the population. 

I think that the idea of "anyone" will have a right to marry anything is just a scare tactic used to boogeyman the issue. I don't ever see this country being so twisted that acceptance of children marrying parents or siblings marrying each other will ever be explore of accepted.

Post Loving, the High Court struck down all existing anti-homosexual laws. Which means that the last resistance against same-sex marriage is based on nothing but a public distaste of a legal activity between consenting adults leading to the denial of the issuance of a license by government. 

That's very shaky legs for an argument to stand on.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2014, 09:24:54 AM by Luis Gonzalez »
“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,807
Re: 1 Judge Overrides Will of the People
« Reply #18 on: May 25, 2014, 09:47:21 AM »
When he said that he expanded the meaning of traditional marriage. Black and white marriage wasn't "traditional" at the time and opposed by 70% of the population.

AT the time Luis, very few states still prohibited interracial marriages.  Even southern states permitted it...not all of course.  I know.  In 1966 I couldn't marry in Georgia, but drove across the line to Alabama and it was fine. 

Quote
I think that the idea of "anyone" will have a right to marry anything is just a scare tactic used to boogeyman the issue. I don't ever see this country being so twisted that acceptance of children marrying parents or siblings marrying each other will ever be explore of accepted.

I don't know why it wouldn't work toward that.  Such things fall into the same category as men marrying men.  As culture changes, so then do the views of the courts.  After all, it's either a civil right or it isn't. 

Quote
Post Loving, the High Court struck down all existing anti-homosexual laws. Which means that the last resistance against same-sex marriage is based on nothing but a public distaste of a legal activity between consenting adults leading to the denial of the issuance of a license by government. 

That's very shaky legs for an argument to stand on.

Still it took a redefining of what marriage was, and that can continue to be the case as our culture becomes more and more accepting of what was previously unacceptable.
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline olde north church

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,136
Re: 1 Judge Overrides Will of the People
« Reply #19 on: May 25, 2014, 10:16:15 AM »
There were states which prohibited epileptics from marrying as well.
Why?  Well, because I'm a bastard, that's why.

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,807
Re: 1 Judge Overrides Will of the People
« Reply #20 on: May 25, 2014, 10:19:22 AM »
There were states which prohibited epileptics from marrying as well.

Didn't know that, but not surprised.  Health has always been an issue with respect to marriage.
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline olde north church

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,136
Re: 1 Judge Overrides Will of the People
« Reply #21 on: May 25, 2014, 10:22:21 AM »
Didn't know that, but not surprised.  Health has always been an issue with respect to marriage.

And people considered epilepsy to be a form of madness.



Apologies on that tangent though.  But if people can bring in interracial marriage into it, all is fair!
Why?  Well, because I'm a bastard, that's why.

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,498
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: 1 Judge Overrides Will of the People
« Reply #22 on: May 25, 2014, 10:51:29 AM »
AT the time Luis, very few states still prohibited interracial marriages.  Even southern states permitted it...not all of course.  I know.  In 1966 I couldn't marry in Georgia, but drove across the line to Alabama and it was fine. 

I don't know why it wouldn't work toward that.  Such things fall into the same category as men marrying men.  As culture changes, so then do the views of the courts.  After all, it's either a civil right or it isn't. 

Still it took a redefining of what marriage was, and that can continue to be the case as our culture becomes more and more accepting of what was previously unacceptable.

So, what is your exact objection to the idea of same-sex marriage?
“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline olde north church

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,136
Re: 1 Judge Overrides Will of the People
« Reply #23 on: May 25, 2014, 11:03:24 AM »
So, what is your exact objection to the idea of same-sex marriage?

I'll jump in here, if I may.  Marriage is a sacrament.  Homosexuals want marriage but they don't want the most basic restriction, being between a man and a woman. 
They can play house and perform parodies of fornication but it ain't marriage.  I could have given me own sainted Granny 4 wheels and a trunk but it wouldn't have made her a Buick.
Why?  Well, because I'm a bastard, that's why.

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,498
    • Boiling Frogs
Re: 1 Judge Overrides Will of the People
« Reply #24 on: May 25, 2014, 11:17:42 AM »
I'll jump in here, if I may.  Marriage is a sacrament.  Homosexuals want marriage but they don't want the most basic restriction, being between a man and a woman. 
They can play house and perform parodies of fornication but it ain't marriage.  I could have given me own sainted Granny 4 wheels and a trunk but it wouldn't have made her a Buick.

Marriage is a sacrament for the people who believe that it is a sacrament, and no one who believes that marriage is a sacrament will enter into a same-sex marriage.

Marriage was a sacrament when it was A) for life, and B) entered into it in a Church. A Civil Magistrate lack the ability to enter people into a Holy Union, but we call civil unions "marriages".

It stopped being one when a segment of the people decided that one should be allowed multiple marriages in a life time, and when a divorce became easier to obtain than a bankruptcy.

People today marry less, divorce more when they do and those who do bother to marry do so multiple times, as if marriage was no different than changing jobs.

Soon more babies will be born out of wedlock than out of a marriage, and marriage has been the prize to be won in TV shows.

So you should spend time condemning those who, having the ability to marry, have nearly destroyed the sacrament of marriage more so than attacking those who never having had the ability to actually marry at all, are now being blamed for the destruction of the institution.

It's hypocritical to demand that others abide by a sacrament that by and large we don't pay any attention to.

The slippery slope that found us here was set into motion by us.
“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf